Phenomenon of “national disproportionality” in the development of the history of economic thought: in search for alternative interpretation

 
PIIS086904990011387-7-1
DOI10.7868/S0869049918030097
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Occupation: Associate Professor
Affiliation: Ural State University of Economics
Address: 62, 8 March st., Yekaterinburg 620144, Russian Federation
Journal nameObshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost
EditionIssue 3
Pages122-137
Abstract

The article analyses some of the existing interpretations of the phenomenon of the “national disproportionality” in the development of the history of economic thought. Author puts forward his own explanation of the paradox of the uneven representation of concepts from different countries in the history of economic thought.

Keywordseconomic science, “national disproportionality” in the development of the history of economic thought
Received10.06.2018
Publication date10.06.2018
Number of characters555
Cite   Download pdf To download PDF you should sign in
Размещенный ниже текст является ознакомительной версией и может не соответствовать печатной

views: 148

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Acemoglu D. (2013) Course 14.461 – Advanced Macroeconomics. Lection 10: Creativity and Leadership. 2013. October 8 (http://economics. mit.edu/files/9107/).

2. Acemoglu D. (2012) Daron Acemoglu on “Extractive” Politics and Us (http://radioopensource.org/daron-acemoglu-on-extractive-politics-and-us/).

3. Acemoglu D., Robinson D. (2015) Pochemu odni strany bogatye, a drugie bednye. Proishozhdenie vlasti, procvetanija i nishhety [Why some countries are rich, and others are poor. The origin of power, prosperity and poverty]. Moscow: AST.

4. Acemoglu D., Robinson J., Verdier T. (2012) Can’t We All Be More Like Scandinavians? Asymmetric Growth and Institutions in an Interdependent World, NBER Working Paper, no. 18441.

5. Avtonomov V.S. (2006) Metodologicheskie problemy sovremennoy jekonomicheskoy nauki [Methodological Problems of the Modern Economics]. Vestnik Rossijskoy akademii nauk, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 203–208.

6. Backhouse R.E. (2010) Economics / Backhouse R. E., Fontaine P. The History of the Social Sciences Since 1945. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, pp. 38–71.

7. Bertaux N.E. (1997) The Contributions of Daniel F. Fusfeld, Economist / Nahid Aslanbeigui N., Choi Y.B. (Eds.). Borderlands of Economics: Essays in Honour of Daniel R. Fusfeld. London; New York: Routledge, pp. 45–67.

8. Blaug M. (2005a) 100 velikih ekonomistov do Keynsa [Great Economists Before Keynes]. St. Petersburg: Ekonomicheskaya shkola.

9. Blaug M. (2005b) 100 velikih ekonomistov posle Keynsa [Great Economists After Keynes]. St. Petersburg: Ekonomicheskaya shkola.

10. Blaug M., Vane H. (eds.). (2003) Who’s Who in Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

11. Brzezinski Z. (2001) The Geostrategic Triad: Living with China, Europe, and Russia. Washington, DC: The CSIS Press.

12. Choi Y.B. (1996) The Americanization of Economics in Korea. History of Political Economy, vol. 28 (Supplement), pp. 97–122.

13. Clarkson S. (1993) Economics: The New Hemispheric Fundamentalism. Grinspun R., Cameron M. (eds.). The Political Economy of North American Free Trade. London: Macmillan.

14. Cowen T. (2011) The Great Stagnation. New York: Dutton.

15. Eichengreen B., Vazquez P. (1999) Institutions and Economic Growth in Postwar Europe: Evidence and Conjectures (https://eml.berkeley.edu/~ eichengr/research/vanark.pdf).

16. Excellent Response to Call for Ideas on European Innovation Council (2016) (http://ec.europa.eu/research/index.cfm?pg=newsalert&year=2016&na=na-040516).

17. Fedorov V.P. (2001) Pochemu u nas net velikih ekonomistov? [Why don't we have great economists?]. Ekonomicheskie strategii, no. 5–6, pp. 30–33.

18. Friedman M. (2002) Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

19. Gerrits A. (2016) Nationalism in Europe since 1945. London; New York: Palgrave.

20. Gloveli G.D. (2014) Merkantilistskaja geokul'tura i “prozel'naya goryachest'”: nasledie Ju. Krizhanicha i I. Pososhkova v kontekste mir-sistemnogo podhoda [Mercantilist Geoculture and “Proselyal Hotness”: the Legacy of Y. Krizhanich and I. Pososhkov in the Context of the World-System Approach]. Istoriko-ekonomicheskie issledovaniya, no. 2, pp. 239–269.

21. Gordon R.J (2012) Is US Economic Growth over? Faltering Innovation Confronts the Six Headwinds, NBER Working Paper, no. 18315.

22. Groenewegen P. (1996) The Australian Experience. History of Political Economy, vol. 28 (Supplement), pp. 61–79.

23. Gualerzi D., Cibils A. (2014) High Development Theory, CEPAL and Beyond. Cardoso J.L., Marcuzzo M.C., Romero Sotelo M.E. (eds.). Abingdon; Economic Development and Global Crisis: The Latin Economy in Historical Perspective. New York: Routledge, pp. 139–159.

24. Guriev S. (2005) Uroki ekonomiki: zachem nuzhny ekonomisty [Lessons of Economics: Why Do We Need Economists]. Vedomosti, 13 janvarja.

25. Hagemann H. (2011) European Émigrés and the ‘Americanization’ of Economics. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 643–671.

26. Hall P., Soskice D. (eds.). (2001) Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundation of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

27. Henderson N. (1979) Britain’s Decline; Its Causes and Consequences. The Economist. June 2 (http://www.economist.com/node/13315108).

28. Hübner K. (2005) Spaces of Innovation: Introductory Remarks on the Comparative Political Economy of the New Economy. Hübner K. (ed.). The New Economy in Transatlantic Perspective. Spaces of Innovation. London; New York: Routledge.

29. Hutchison A. (2005) The Top 50 Inventions of the Past 50 Years. Popular Mechanics, December (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/ a3420784671).

30. Johnson S. (2009) The Quiet Coup. The Atlantic, May (http://www.theatlantic/com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/307364).

31. Kawamata M. (2000) Scientific Contributions to International Journals. Ikeo A. (Ed.). Japanese Economics and Economists since 1945. London; New York: Routledge, pp. 93–122.

32. Kleian N. (2011) Doktrina shoka [The Shock Doctrine]. Moscow: Dobraja kniga.

33. Latov Yu.V. (2007) Paradoksy istorii ekonomicheskih ucheniy i ih ob’yasnenie pri pomoshchi koncepcii mir-sistemnogo analiza [History of Economic Thought Paradoxes and Their Explanation with the Help of the Concept of World-system Analysis]. Istoriko-ekonomicheskie issledovaniya, no. 3, pp. 24–48.

34. Litan R. (2015) Start-up Slowdown. How the United States Can Regain It’s Entrepreneurial Edge. Foreign Affairs. January/February, pp. 47–53.

35. Mackie C.D. (2016) Canonizing Economic Theory: How Theories and Ideas are Selected in Economics. London; New York: Routledge.

36. Maddison A. (2001) The World Economy: A Millenial Perspective. Paris: OECD.

37. Mal'tsev A.A. (2016a) Gipoteza o tehnicistskoy istorii ekonomicheskoy mysli [Hypothesis about Technisist History of Economic Thought]. Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost’, no. 5, pp. 30–48.

38. Mal’tsev A.A. (2016c) Metodologicheskiy landshaft istorii ekonomicheskih ucheniy: novye istoriograficheskie al’ternativy i vozmozhnosti [Methodological Landscape of the History of Economic Thought: New Historiographical Alternatives and Opportunities]. Vestnik Moskovskogo un-ta. Ser. 6. Ekonomika, no. 1, pp. 44–63.

39. Mal'tsev A. (2016b) Rossiyskoe soobshchestvo ekonomistov: osobennosti i perspektivy [Russian Community of Economists: Main Features and Perspectives]. Voprosy ekonomiki, no. 11, pp. 135–158.

40. Morgan M. (2001) The Formation of ‘Modern’ Economics: Engineering and Ideology: LSE Working Paper no. 62/01. London School of Economics and Political Science.

41. Mumford L. (1955) Technics and Civilizations. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

42. Reinert E.S. (1994) Competiveness and Its Predecessors – a 500-year Cross-National Perspective. Oslo: STEP Report.

43. Rosser J.B. Jr., Holt R., Colander D. (eds.). (2010) European Economics at a Crossroads. Cheltenham; Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.

44. Samuelson P. (1988) The Passing of the Guard in Economics. Eastern Economic Journal, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 319–329.

45. Shumilov A.V., Balackiy E.V. (2016) Akademicheskie reytingi RePEc: voprosy postroeniya i rol’ rossiyskih uchastnikov [RePEc Academic Rankings: Construction Issues and the Role of Russian Participants]. Zhurnal Novoy ekonomicheskoy assotsiatsii, no. 4, pp. 111–138.

46. Taylor M.Z. (2016) The Politics of Innovation: Why Some Countries Are Better Than Others at Science & Technology. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

47. Tilford S., Whyte P. (eds.). (2011) Innovation: How Europe Can Take Off. London: Centre for European Reform.

48. Thompson W.R., Reuveny R. (2010) Limits to Globalization: North-South Divergence. London; New York: Routledge.

49. Zakaria F. (2015) American Innovation is in Trouble. The Washington Post. January 1.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up